Issue 8. Bug-16. The document does not say how to handle conformance
ratings for inaccessible primary pages that have accessible alternative pages.

Proposed resolution: Checkpoints that may be satisfied by having an
accessible alternative page say so in the checkpoint. For example, 6.3 may be
satisfied either by ensuring the "page is usable when scripts, applets, or
other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported" or by
providing "an equivalent mechanism on an alternative accessible
page." The editors will read to make sure that wherever this is the case,
it is stated properly.

JW: It's paradoxical, but true, that a document can fail to have a rating
but, thanks to alternatives, a site can have a higher rating. Thus, the set
conforms more than the member.

Does anyone disagree with that principle: the combination of a page and its
alternatives is accessible.

JW: But the accessible alternative has to be prominently linked from the
inaccessible one.

WC: Pairing is an important idea and navigation between them is very
important.

EH: I don't want to require linking between accessible and inaccessible
pages.

DD: Be careful because most of what you get as alternative pages is not
really accessible. Alternate pages can't be poor in structure.

Also raised by Wendy Chisholm, but not to the working group. Issue 17.
Checkpoint 3.8 is incorrect and contradicts the HTML4.0 spec [3.8 - Provide
individual button controls in a form rather than simulating a set of buttons
with an image map.] The idea this checkpoint is trying to convey (to avoid
using server-side image maps in form input controls) is a technique of
"avoid server-side image maps" (checkpoint 9.1).

Proposed resolution: Delete checkpoint 3.8 and discuss in the techniques
document in the Forms section, and point to it from the Image map section.

Issue 15. It seems that checkpoint 10.2 ought to be a note for checkpoint
12.4. [10.2 - For all form controls with implicitly associated labels, ensure
that the label is properly positioned. 12.4 - Associate labels explicitly with
their controls.]

Proposed resolution: Reword 12.4 to read, "Associate labels explicitly
with their controls. Note. when controls are not explicitly associated, ensure
that the label is properly positioned. The label must immediately, ....rest of
10.2..."

Issue 9. The example for 6.3 focuses too much on NOSCRIPT and should
highlight graceful transformation [For example, in HTML provide a text
equivalent with the NOSCRIPT element or via a server-side script. Or provide a
non-text equivalent (e.g., a snapshot in place of an animation, a video
equivalent of an applet, etc.). For applets and programmatic objects, provide
text equivalents. Refer also to guideline 1. ]

Proposed resolution: For example, when using JavaScript in an HTML
document, do not use "javascript:" as the URI for a link. If it is
not possible to make the page usable without scripts, provide a text equivalent
with the NOSCRIPT element, use a server-side script instead of client-side
script, or provide an alternative accessible page. An example of an alternative
mechanism for an applet simulation is a video recording of someone interacting
with the applet simulation. Refer also to guideline 1.

Issue 11. in checkpoint 6.4 - are we sure that user agents will provide
device-independent means to activate event handlers? Even if they do, shouldn't
authors be encouraged to ensure that script and applets are written to be
device independent?

Proposed resolution: The scripts and applets portion of this is handled in
6.3. Move the NOFRAMES portion to Guideline 10 [Use interim solutions] as the
new 10.6 - "Until user agents are able to navigate and display multiple
pages laid out in one window (as with HTML Frames), provide a means to access
the pages one at a time. For example, in HTML use the NOFRAMES element with
links to each frame in the frameset. [Priority 2]"

CONSENSUS - to keep as it is, but delete the phrase
"provide a NOSCRIPT for every script" from the example.